So business shouldn't pay musicians when they use music to sell their products.
Perhaps the public doesn't want to pay for music, but those companies exploiting music to power their products should. No?

"So" is an assumption. I never said that nor implied it. Any company that uses a copywrited piece of music pays for it. Lawyers see to that.

Now relate this concept and distinction to Jimmy Wales, if you would. I hope I've made it clear through this conversation that it's this relation I am prodding at: if you aren't backhandedly accusing Jimmy Wales of facilitating or profitting from "unauthorized downloads," then why are you invoking his name with this association?

Simply because he led the campaign.
Wikipedia has nothing to do with unauthorized filesharing. Wikipedia wasn't being targeted by politicians either.
Wales knows exactly what is happening to creative people, and yet he fostered and encouraged the statement that SOPA would 'break the internet'.

Interestingly, recently Wales backed the cause of a young British student who has been charged with making $10,000 a week from his website linking to unauthorized material (tv)

To my credit, I gaveyouplenty of opportunities to gracefully retract the slur against Wales by acknowledging it was an error to associate him with the described malfeasance. Is it so hard to admit you made a mistake?

To my credit, I gaveyouplenty of opportunities to gracefully retract the slur against Wales by acknowledging it was an error to associate him with the described malfeasance. Is it so hard to admit you made a mistake?

are you actually trying to make a point or just ranting with out of context links, I can't tell?

To my credit, I gaveyouplenty of opportunities to gracefully retract the slur against Wales by acknowledging it was an error to associate him with the described malfeasance. Is it so hard to admit you made a mistake?

You're obsessed with simplistic 'gotchas' as usual.
First you claim I don't understand the situation as I'm not American. Then you claim I am accusing Wales of acting illegally. Of course I never have, even vaguely.
I posted because you claimed 'tech giants' acted against SOPA only after public pressure. You made this claim to support your notion that the entertainment industry portrayed the public as uninformed pawns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aroundtheworld

Attempts to frame opponents of the bill as uncritical pawns should then be so seen as the historical manipulation that it is; it was only public pressure that compelled the tech giants to adopt their eventual stance against SOPA.

So I said two things....
Jimmy Wales is a 'tech giant', just based on personal influence and wealth. He led the charge against SOPA. He practically initiated it, especially with his 'dark day' strategy.
As the Wikipedia day of darkness approached, all manner of 'tech giants' joined in, telling their users that SOPA threatened to 'break the internet'.
I have sympathy for the public taking on board the view of technology opinion leaders telling them the internet was about to be fatally wounded.
So I'm not even for a moment accusing Wales of sharing information illegally. I'm saying he used his power to further his own ends, even though as an intelligent business person he could/can see the damage that is being wrought in the creative community.
Yes, Wikipedia and Wales are 'tech giants'. Yes, they led the charge and disseminated dramatic claims (largely unproven). No, the public weren't ill informed pawns. They chose to follow the people they have been told are the leading authorities on internet technology.
I'm sure Wales is 100% sincere in his vision of free information. Wikipedia as a website stores a massive amount of information, and it is all free. However, as you are I'm sure aware. 'Free information' has been used as a term to describe unauthorized sharing of entertainment. And as I said, Wales recently publicly championed the cause of a British student who while running his site called TV Shack, reportedly earned $230,000 in advertising revenue alone.
These are all facts, not 'slurs'.

When the mission is to make the sum of human knowledge freely available to the whole world, people who want to charge and restrict access to human knowledge are adversaries. Wikipedia is a free culture project (if not the most notable one), so it's not surprising that Wikipedians don't share the same views on copyright.

Do you really think these people are naive enough to not be able to know the difference between knowledge and something you create? Or are you just that naive?

The Wikimedia Foundation also curates a great deal of artwork and music that they also provide to the world free of charge via the Commons and Wikisource. So I'd wager that "knowledge" includes all products of the human mind, at least in the context of their mission. But I never personally asked Jimbo to clarify what he means, but I wager it's something slightly more broad than just a collection of facts (besides, that's what Wikidata is going to be).

The Wikimedia Foundation also curates a great deal of artwork and music that they also provide to the world free of charge via the Commons and Wikisource. So I'd wager that "knowledge" includes all products of the human mind, at least in the context of their mission.

Ha your quick! I had deleted my message because I knew there would be a silly response and didn't want to get into it again.

Anyways if they own that artwork that is their choice. Either way don't see how them curating some art, changes the definition of knowledge and creation. Or maybe like I said they are that naive, but doubt it. Sounds like more of an agenda.

Ha your quick! I had deleted my message because I knew there would be a silly response and didn't want to get into it again.

Anyways if they own that artwork that is their choice. Either way don't see how them curating some art, changes the definition of knowledge and creation. Or maybe like I said they are that naive, but doubt it. Sounds like more of an agenda.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." --Jimbo Wales

I'm at Wikimania and I saw/heard this "agenda" repeated many, many times by various presenters (including Jimbo himself). You can question the scope of the Foundation's mission, or if music is not knowledge, but quite frankly you can't have a mission like that and be hardline pro-copyright. Copyright fundamentally is a law to add restriction or add costs to various intangibles like knowledge. A world where every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge is not a world with copyright, at least in the current sense.

But if you want to hate on Wikipedia or think Wikipedians are "naive", feel free to ignore their existence. But the rest of the world won't.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." --Jimbo Wales

I'm at Wikimania and I saw/heard this "agenda" repeated many, many times by various presenters (including Jimbo himself). You can question the scope of the Foundation's mission, or if music is not knowledge, but quite frankly you can't have a mission like that and be hardline pro-copyright. Copyright fundamentally is a law to add restriction or add costs to various intangibles like knowledge. A world where every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge is not a world with copyright, at least in the current sense.

But if you want to hate on Wikipedia or think Wikipedians are "naive", feel free to ignore their existence. But the rest of the world won't.

Do you not feel that saying a creation is the same as knowledge, as being naive? Or over simplifying something for agenda reasons?

When the mission is to make the sum of human knowledge freely available to the whole world, people who want to charge and restrict access to human knowledge are adversaries. Wikipedia is a free culture project (if not the most notable one), so it's not surprising that Wikipedians don't share the same views on copyright.

Sure, they can all do what they like with their information.
My information is mine, and seeking to remove it from my control is nothing more than dictatorship.
Copyright hasn't changed. If 'Wikepedians' wish to change my relationship with my own works, they need to change copyright first.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." --Jimbo Wales

I'm at Wikimania and I saw/heard this "agenda" repeated many, many times by various presenters (including Jimbo himself). You can question the scope of the Foundation's mission, or if music is not knowledge, but quite frankly you can't have a mission like that and be hardline pro-copyright. Copyright fundamentally is a law to add restriction or add costs to various intangibles like knowledge. A world where every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge is not a world with copyright, at least in the current sense.

But if you want to hate on Wikipedia or think Wikipedians are "naive", feel free to ignore their existence. But the rest of the world won't.

sure...
you first!
how about your bank account and pins please. How about that private video on your hard drive of you and your wife... what about the massive amounts of "knowledge" that Tech companies are amassing and selling on every aspect of a persons life, online and off...

what about the massive amounts of "knowledge" that Tech companies are amassing and selling on every aspect of a persons life, online and off...
All without consent, any real control or knowledge. "A huge, mostly hidden industry is raking in billions collecting, analyzing, and sharing personal information you put on the Web."

I share a good deal of your concern over the potential and actual consequences of the large-scale, largely-unnoticed, data-mining and analysis that the internet can facilitate. But for the sake of discussion, let me play the devil's advocate in emphasizing a different few words from the trailing quote in the passage above:

"A huge, mostly hidden industry is raking in billions collecting, analyzing, and sharing personal information you put on the Web."

For the most part (but notably not the whole part), the scope of information that these data-driven web firms have is limited to the information they are given. The theoretical child born in 2012 will not leave such a comprehensive data footprint simply by default; this data will only exist if the child's parents (and later the child) voluntarily make extensive use of web services that will collect and preserve it. One could pose an effective argument suggesting that users should be better notified of the data and information they are relinquishing, or that there should be better practices for preventing vulnerable populations from using services that might compromise their identities or reputations, but -- devil's advocate or not -- it is worth pointing out that these corporations [generally] only have this information because we gave it to them.

I share a good deal of your concern over the potential and actual consequences of the large-scale, largely-unnoticed, data-mining and analysis that the internet can facilitate. But for the sake of discussion, let me play the devil's advocate in emphasizing a different few words from the trailing quote in the passage above:

"A huge, mostly hidden industry is raking in billions collecting, analyzing, and sharing personal information you put on the Web."

For the most part (but notably not the whole part), the scope of information that these data-driven web firms have is limited to the information they are given. The theoretical child born in 2012 will not leave such a comprehensive data footprint simply by default; this data will only exist if the child's parents (and later the child) voluntarily make extensive use of web services that will collect and preserve it. One could pose an effective argument suggesting that users should be better notified of the data and information they are relinquishing, or that there should be better practices for preventing vulnerable populations from using services that might compromise their identities or reputations, but -- devil's advocate or not -- it is worth pointing out that these corporations [generally] only have this information because we gave it to them.

Yeah.. LOL.. Data mining? Ok, here are the findings: In order of importance.

A. Sex sells.

B. People are stupid.

C. Money is idolized.

D. The world is violent.

Last edited by Wolf LeProducer; 14th July 2012 at 08:54 AM..
Reason: For now we see but through a glass darkly.

sure...
you first!
how about your bank account and pins please. How about that private video on your hard drive of you and your wife... what about the massive amounts of "knowledge" that Tech companies are amassing and selling on every aspect of a persons life, online and off...

if "information wants to be free" as the tech industry has been selling for all these years, then access to it should be free as well, no? what a beautiful, noble, altruistic concept: let's tell google to stop making billions in advertising revenue (um... selling information), tell ISPs to stop charging for internet access, and truly set information FREE... i'm all for it!

This thought makes me wonder what the position of the tech companies would be if their software was as freely available on the pirate sites as music?

There is a difference, however, in the respective markets in that it's easier for tech companies to go after business users (their primary market) for theft than for the music industry to go after a million children and young adults.

... Until both sides of this debacle engage in some intelligent thought in a middle-ground and so drop their pretentious/financially-vested futuristic or anachronistic ideologies, only harm will come of it. ...

...the reason I think the big labels became bad for music is that they became too commercial...profit became the sole driving force, the music took a (ever further receding) back seat.

your naiveté's poking through that cute little blouse again. if you think anyone, ever, has invested real money in any business for any reason other that turning a profit, you should storm straight back into you mom's garage and swear another blood-oath to never "sell out" with your bandmates.

and to the oft regurgitated "too commercial" argument: do you think motown is "too commercial"? do you think jive and the britney spears type endeavors are "too commercial"? do you have a problem with celine dion? top-40 hip-hop? coldplay? skrillex?... well guess what: your personal taste is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and meaningless in the context of your argument. you seem to think your own personal taste gives you the right to define an entire industry's identity and right to exist, and further have the balls to think the rest of the entire music purchasing world shares your personal taste. get over yourself man!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250

One word for you, covers...

covers and derivative works are thoroughly provided for under current copyright legislation. the composers and authors of the works are either paid accordingly, or waive the obligation in writing if they feel so inclined. the important thing here is that it's their choice to make that call.

also, i think you may be a little foggy on how it actually works: payment to the creator is only required when the cover is exploited for commercial purposes. no one's ever stopped anyone from covering a song or demanded payment for copyright if the cover wasn't exploited commercially. (because they wouldn't have legal grounds to do so). go look that up, and then amend your soliloquy about higher learning and research and all that: it's a total non-issue you're trying to spin into a point. (that's just ignorance of copyright law talking though, i don't hold it against you. )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250

The point I've been reiterating is to police/tax infringement on copyright at the points of monetization/ownership...

agreed 100%. i'd like to see that happen as well: where do i sign? (but if the US government is willing to invest the resources to give it a shot at the end user level, i certainly won't try to stop them. their strategy may also have some value.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250

You come across to me as...

your powers of deduction are astounding! (stick to internet punditry, you'll never make it as a clairvoyant.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleted 0833250

Until both sides of this debacle engage in some intelligent thought in a middle-ground ...

you're joking right? all but the last vestiges of the music industry have already been cannibalized by the tech industry. there's no ground left to middle over. tech has raped and pillaged intellectual property viking-style for nearly 15 years now; what makes you think the creative classes owe them even the slightest amount of courtesy or leeway? the tech bandits sure as hell haven't had any problems methodically dismantling artists lives and livelihoods, or given the wholesale destruction of an entire industry a second thought.

the onus for finding middle ground and establishing ethical, equitable business practices was on the tech industry--15 years ago.

This thought makes me wonder what the position of the tech companies would be if their software was as freely available on the pirate sites as music?

There is a difference, however, in the respective markets in that it's easier for tech companies to go after business users (their primary market) for theft than for the music industry to go after a million children and young adults.

2) If anything, your replies have been nothing short of the most dogmatic of all on this thread: you might as well have been chanting "kill the pirates" and "won't somebody PLEASE think of the record labels".

Sorry Emillision, this is just spin from someone who exploits artists and does not respect them. What is it exactly that you do for a living? I'm curious.

The issue is about artists, actual individual human beings being fairly compensated for their labor. It has little to do with record labels, who, as we all know have also exploited artists. But the difference is labels pay artists, negotiate contracts, and the artist is contractually protected in the case of a dispute. There are no contracts with those who illegally exploit artists online, that are enterprise level corporate businesses ripping off artists for profit.

So sad that you would aggressively favor the rights of corporations to illegally exploit the rights of individual citizens. And worse you advocate that corporations should have the RIGHT to illegally exploit and defy the rights of citizens for profit.

Wow. Just wow. So even if record labels have exploited artists, your grand solution and superior logic dictates that an even WORSE exploitation of artists and individual rights is a somehow a solution to the previous injustice? Seriously? Wow... Ok.

This is about big business ripping off artists , just like always, except now YOU get to be a part of the problem. Wake up bro, you are being played by corporations to increase their profit.

Explain to me again how protecting the rights of artists as individual citizens to freedom of expression is censorship?

You are confusing the right to the freedom of expression, with the illegal exploitation of that expression. They are very different.

ICE-T has the right to express his views in the song "Cop Killer" without prosecution or censorship. You do not have the right to illegally exploit that expression for personal gain, corporate profit or both. Please get it straight.

when faced with an actually clearly defined argument, you guys always run from the truth, cop out, or try to move the goal posts. and that's why, in the end you will fail. this is about the rights of individual citizens vs corporate profits by the internet and tech companies. so sad that you side with the corporate gatekeepers illegally exploiting artists and not the artists and individual citizens themselves.

"the letter to emily" saw many artists express themselves publicly for the first time since napster, expect more. written by an artist as expression for artists, it spoke not just to other artists, but also for them. I'm sure there are a lot of people right now that would like david lowery and the trichordist to shut up...

there's an old saying, "when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose." as more artists learn the truth, more voices will be added.

i can understand why you'd say that based on our interactions. (although i’d hope all the soul and r&b bands i've either played in or produced over the years would disagree with you!)

as to your diatribe about greed and all that: sure. you’re not wrong on some of those points, but i'd hazard a guess that the world most people live in is a good deal harder than yours. (that’s nice for you.) most people who actually make a living in music have found that reality has a nasty habit of kicking the fu*k out of rose colored glasses—they call it “the business end” of a blunt object for a reason. (the business end of anything is rarely much fun to examine too closely!)

regarding vacuous pop music, which has consistently drawn bigger audiences and sold in greater numbers than stuff that challenges the listener or is unfamiliar: it’s been with us since the invention of the radio—and for good reason. in most cases radio pop’s not my cup of tea either (especially right now), but there's a strong human argument for it—it’s brought a lot of joy to millions of people who don’t happen to share the superior taste in music you seem to be advertising.

but more to the point: do you know why there’s so much more commercial music being pumped into the mainstream today than ever before? there are two reasons, and the tech industry is responsible for both of them.

reason #1) in the past, juicy profits from flash in the pan acts that sold well allowed labels to takes risks with artists and material that were less radio friendly. (promising artists that needed time to mature, that didn’t necessarily sell as well right out of the gate.) this enabled a lot of the bands you like (cited by you previously) to exist as you know them today—so you should think twice before belittling catchy bell and whistle music: it did all kinds of good behind the scenes indirectly, for a long time. (and despite what you think you know, this was still the case in the late 90’s! most of the a&r guys i knew at the time were actively pursuing artists they thought could build long term careers, and labels were still willing to spend time and money developing those kinds of artists: artists with great tunes and musical integrity that had lasting potential.) of course artist development is more or less dead now: spending the proper time and money to build an audience for music that doesn’t have a shot at charting right away is a risk no one can afford anymore. the glut of nicki minaj/LMFAO/katy perry/red one type productions that are cheap to produce and easy to market, (that have taken over the planet) are a direct result of the erosion of sales—not the cause as you keep regurgitating!

reason #2) with a thousand free songs in your pocket, they’re all disposable.

The issue is about artists, actual individual human beings being fairly compensated for their labor. It has little to do with record labels, who, as we all know have also exploited artists. But the difference is labels pay artists, negotiate contracts, and the artist is contractually protected in the case of a dispute. There are no contracts with those who illegally exploit artists online...

It amazes me, how easily most people can not wait to give their money to multi-national corporations that destroy the environment, and create a swath of poverty, and enslave us with negative marketing... but these people will not spend a penny on, "rich musicians."

Re trite observations and repetitious arguments: just let me make one thing very clear, I am in no way defending modern tech-companies. If you want to make out that I am, knock yourself out.

Re modern pop-music: do you have any idea how much money the bands I just mentioned in my last post have made for themselves AND record labels? It's in the industry's interest to make music that good; it's actually more profitable!

Anyway, I do agree with the basic premises of most of what you're all saying, just not in terms of the majors from c. mid-90s-ish onwards…

All I'm worried about, is, NOW things are very different, AND it would be careless to sign up to legislation that might damage the world just to suit some anachronistic notions of "how things should be"…basically, an offense needs to be more creative; innovative even…of course time is running out, and the tech companies most certainly have the upper hand.